God in Haiti (Sunday Reflections for January 31, 2009)

Did God cause the earthquake in Haiti? TV evangelist Pat Robertson implied as much on his 700 Club TV show. A torrent of criticism poured down on him afterwards but I’m not aware that he’s retracted or modified his remarks.

When speaking about the catastrophe and calling the country to come to Haiti’s aid, President Obama said, “we stand in solidarity with our neighbors to the south, knowing that but for the grace of God, there we go.” Yet these gracious words also hide a questionable theology, as writer James Woods observes in the New York Times.

And there was God once again. Awkwardly, the literal meaning of Mr. Obama’s phrase is not so far from Pat Robertson’s hatefulness. Who, after all, would want to worship the kind of God whose “grace” protects Americans from Haitian horrors?

There, but for the grace of God, go I. While we may not think or say those somewhat archaic words, many of us express a similar sentiment when we encounter someone else’s misfortune. But what do we mean by it? What did President Obama mean? It can be a friend, a neighbor, a coworker, or a stranger in a news story that catches our attention: hit by a car, diagnosed with cancer, or (common today) loses their job and falls into financial ruin. “There, but for the grace of God, go I.”

That could have been me, we think. But it wasn’t me because . . . God protected me? I’m lucky or the other person was unlucky? Or what?

Under any kind of theological system, Robertson’s analysis is pretty farfetched. Even if true, it makes no sense that a “pact with the devil” (as Robertson alleged) made centuries ago would cause God to send an earthquake today. But what about the individual victims? Woods quotes several responses by Haitian survivors:

“We have survived by the grace of God.”

“I blame man. God gave us nature, and we Haitians, and our governments, abused the land. You cannot get away without consequences.”

“Why give thanks to God? Because we are here. What happened is the will of God. We are in the hands of God now.”

The last was spoken by Bishop Éric Toussaint as he stood by the heavily damaged cathedral in Port-au-Prince, where the Roman Catholic archbishop was killed. Woods appreciates why BishopToussaint would speak such ambivalent thoughts but he doesn’t buy them.

This response is entirely understandable, uttered in a ruined landscape beyond the experience of most of us, and a likely source of pastoral comfort to the bishop’s desperate flock. But that should not obscure the fact that it is little more than a piece of helpless mystification, a contradictory cry of optimistic despair.

“A contradictory cry of optimistic despair”? The judgment sounds harsh but it may not be far from the truth. As Woods says, none of us can truly appreciate what it is like to experience something as catastrophic as the Haitian earthquake and then trying to regain our equilibrium in a homeland shattered almost beyond recognition. Would we be surprised to find that many/most survivors are in some state of shock? As is becoming increasingly well known, PTSD is not simply an experience of veterans but can afflict anyone who has gone through a traumatic event. Inevitably people’s feelings, thoughts, and perceptions are distorted and jumbled as they try to comprehend the incomprehensible.

For most of human history, there was no explanation for natural disasters like earthquakes, hurricanes or outbreaks of plague other than, “God/the gods did this.” Today it’s different. Regarding earthquakes, we all know about fault lines and plate tectonics. Indeed, seismologists had told the Haitian government a short while ago that a major earthquake there was a highly likely in the near future. They even told them about how strong it would be and they were right on the money. Time and Haiti’s poverty prevented anything really useful being done with this information.

Telling Haitian victims now about plate tectonics wouldn’t be cold-hearted as much as it would be irrelevant. At times of trauma and loss, literal explanations may be of some help but what we really need is to somehow integrate such events into our life story. Hence the most typical response at such times is, Why me?

There is growing scientific evidence that humans are hard-wired to look for explanations for our experiences. It sounds obvious but it isn’t really. Indeed it’s one of the things that sets us apart from other animals and is one of our primary survival skills. Formulating explanations helps us predict events and behaviors and plan responses. For better or for worse, though, we can’t seem to turn it off. We look for—and find—explanations for lots of things that may have no explanations or very simple ones. It’s what leads to superstitions (an athlete’s lucky t-shirt—he always wins with it), scapegoating (“It’s all the Jews fault”), and yes, sometimes to God (“God has done this”).

Did God cause you to get cancer? No, you have a faulty gene, you ingested polluting chemicals in the air or water, you were a smoker. Did God cause your car crash? No, there was ice, the other driver was drunk, you were driving too fast. Did God cause your house to fall and kill your wife? No, there was an earthquake and your house was not strong enough to withstand it and she was inside while you were coming home from work. Emotionally and psychologically, however, we may not be able to hear such explanations. They don’t help us make sense of the world we live in which has suddenly gone crazy and out of control.

So, is God irrelevant? As an explanation for Haiti’s earthquake, basically yes. Is God absent? That’s a tougher question and one the Bible struggles with in many places. In the end, I think, the Bible concludes that theological speculation is a dead end. Instead, it keeps coming back to the practical and human question: What does suffering and tragedy mean for me?

Near the end of Matthew Jesus tells his famous sheep and goats story. People get into the kingdom based on how they treated the king when he was naked, sick, or imprisoned. “But when did we see you?” they ask. Whenever you cared for or ignored a person in such situations, that’s how you treated me, the king says. Based on that story and in the Bible’s paradoxical way of thinking, if we want to find God it seems Haiti is just the kind of place where we ought to look.

Haiti contribution caution

Reuters’ economics blogger Felix Salmon offers a pragmatic caution regarding donations for Haiti earthquake relief. His title, “Don’t give money to Haiti,” is intended to get attention but it doesn’t mean what you might think. His point is to urge unrestricted donations to worthy charitable organizations.

Salmon’s supporting example is actually pretty startling. Five years after the 2004 Asian earthquake and tsunami, the Red Cross is still sitting on over a half-billion dollars in contributions towards its relief. This is not due to ineptitude or malfeasance by Red Cross. Rather, people simply gave more money than it could use for that disaster. If those contributions had been unrestricted, they would be available now for the Haiti catastrophe.

Organizations like Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, and countless others operate year-round and around the globe. If anything good can come from these enormous disasters it is that they are very effective fund raisers for such organizations—and I am not being at all cynical in saying this. They genuinely need the money. In reality, these mega-disasters raise more money than aid organizations can use in those locations but—quite legitimately—they aren’t going to say that.

It should be realized that the majority of aid for Haiti will be coming from foreign governments. As April 15 draws near, perhaps you’ll feel better about the phrase “Your tax dollars at work” if you imagine American GIs passing out bottles of water and MREs on the streets of Port-au-Prince. Yet obviously NGOs also are doing, and will be doing, very important work and now have a much greater financial need to support their Haitian relief efforts. So give generously, but don’t tie their hands. They are also doing important work needing funding in places that aren’t in the news—unless another disaster strikes.

We won! (Why aren't we cheering?) (Sunday Reflections for January 17, 2009)

Within hours of the catastrophic earthquake that struck Haiti this week, individuals, charitable organizations, and governments around the world began mobilizing rescue and relief efforts. Monetary donations began coming in almost immediately to support those efforts. Haiti was on everyone’s mind and people wanted to help.

It’s what we have come to expect. So much so, that a day after the quake there was some criticism that relief efforts were not happening fast enough. A corner of some kind was turned in public response to disaster with the horrific Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami just after Christmas, 2004. It killed over 230,000 people in 14 countries and generated an enormous worldwide humanitarian response, including monetary donations of over $7 billion.

The assumption that unaffected people should aid those suffering from disasters in other parts of the world has been taking hold for some time. What has changed most recently has been greatly increased awareness and ability. Global media coverage, now supplemented by a variety of internet outlets, brings almost instant news of major disasters. Modern transportation and organizational resources make it possible to deliver aid within days or even hours of these events.

Yet as impressive as those technological abilities are, what is even more remarkable has been the change in attitude. It is simply assumed that when people are suffering, wherever they might be, we will come to their aid. Why? How did that happen? And do we even realize what a tremendous human advancement this has been?

Helping the poor, sick or other victims of misfortune is encouraged or commanded by most of the world’s religions. For Christians, nowhere is this better summarized than in Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan. Indeed both the Old and New Testaments say that acts of charity are more important than observance of religious ritual. Thus, the parable both lifts up the Samaritan’s generosity and condemns the religious authorities who pass by the injured man they meet on the road.

Over the centuries institutions like hospitals and orphanages were established by the church to care for the poor and weak in fulfillment of Jesus’ injunction to love one’s neighbor. Still, at times of major disasters like wars, famines, plagues or earthquakes, most everyone was on their own—as they knew. The resources and social organization simply didn’t exist to provide large scale help.

Two developments which mark the Modern Era caused that to change: the Enlightenment’s social revolution and free market capitalism’s Industrial Revolution. From the former came the notion of the essential equality and worth of all people and from the latter came the ability to turn those ideas into reality.

Perhaps the best known literary example of these two developments coming together is Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. Ebenezer Scrooge holds to the ancient notion that misfortune is somehow the victim’s fault. When asked for a contribution to help the poor at Christmas he expresses mocking dismay at the possibility that the poor houses (debtor prisons) have gone out of business. The poor should be punished for their condition, not rewarded.

After a series of Christmas Eve visions, Scrooge experiences a dramatic change of heart and becomes a benefactor to Tiny Tim and Bob Cratchit’s family. In Dickens’ secular view this is redemption, yet it actually comports well with the Bible’s own practical understanding of repentance and salvation. A Christmas Carol was an instant success and gave voice to the growing belief that all people have a duty to come to the aid of those in need. In the decades to come, large-scale aid organizations would be established (Red Cross) and a growing body of legislation would: first, restrict abusive practices (slavery, child labor), and then, create government programs to help people in distress (unemployment benefits, public hospitals).

The biggest change, however, came with the global catastrophe of World War II. Millions of people were displaced and needed aid of all kinds. Donations of food, clothing and shelter were made on a scale never before seen. The shattered economies of Europe also came in for help in the first true foreign aid program, the Marshall Plan. But the really dramatic change came in the victors’ treatment of the vanquished. After World War I, enormous reparations were laid on Germany in punishment through the Versailles Treaty. This was now recognized as simply planting seeds for the next war. This time Germany and Japan also received aid to rebuild as a means to keep them from returning to their militaristic past.

So not only has Jesus’ admonition to love our neighbors been accepted as a standard of human behavior, so too has his much more ambitious challenge to lover our enemies. Are either of these observed fully or perfectly? Of course not. Yet they are now seen as norms, not just for individuals, but for nations as well.

This dramatic advancement in human relations has not gotten the notice or appreciation it deserves. Oddly, this is especially true in the church which, it can be argued, should take some credit for this change by its spreading of Christianity over the centuries. The reason for this, I suspect, is the strange ambivalence the church feels about its own mission.

In spreading the message of Jesus, does the church really want, or expect, to succeed? I don’t think it is a stretch to see that one of the church’s problems today, and at least a partial explanation for its modern decline, is the success of its outreach. It has succeeded in convincing people of Jesus’ and the Bible’s view that all people are of equal value and all need to be cared for: we are our sisters' and brothers' keepers. In the struggle for people’s hearts and minds, the church won!

But there hasn’t been a lot of cheering. For one thing, I don’t think Christians really believed it would or could happen. Did Jesus really believe the kingdom of God was at hand? Aren’t people inherently evil? Hmm, we may need to rethink that one. Second, whenever an organization accomplishes a task it’s faced with a new challenge: What next? In some ways that is the church’s dilemma right now: What do we do for an encore? This is another twist on the popular adage: Be careful what you pray for because God may just give it to you.

Yet we should be cheering, even as we recognize that humanity still faces many challenges ahead. Besides the earthquake's damage, much of Haiti’s misery now is the result of its poverty and the abuse it has suffered from its own leaders and as well as foreign governments. What’s needed is the will to do what’s necessary to change that situation. And while not easy, that challegne is nonetheless obvious and accepted, demonstrated by the aid flowing in from around the world.

It’s easy to be discouraged or depressed by the world’s many problems. We also need to recongnize that there have been real accomplishments, to give us strength and hope for the struggles ahead. Only then can we look past the horror and suffering that is Haiti today and see the new world of justice and peace emerging at the same time and in just such places.